Skip to comments.27% of Republicans Would Vote for Pro-Life Third Party Instead of Giuliani (Proof Rudy CAN'T Win)
Posted on 10/04/2007 9:38:23 AM PDT by TitansAFC
If Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican nomination and a third party campaign is backed by Christian conservative leaders, 27% of Republican voters say theyd vote for the third party option rather than Giuliani. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that a three-way race with Hillary Clinton would end up with the former First Lady getting 46% of the vote, Giuliani with 30% and the third-party option picking up 14%. In head-to-head match-ups with Clinton, Giuliani is much more competitive.
Over this past weekend, several Christian conservative leaders indicated they might back a pro-life, third-party, candidate if Giuliani wins the nomination.
The latest poll highlights the potential challenges for Giuliani, but the numbers must be considered in context. A generic third-party candidate may attract 14% of the vote in the abstract at this time. However, if a specific candidate is chosen, that person would likely attract less support due to a variety of factors. Almost all third party candidates poll higher earlier in a campaign and their numbers diminish as election day approaches. Ultimately, of course, some Republicans would have to face the question of whether to vote for Giuliani or help elect a Democrat.
The telephone survey found that 17% of Republicans believe its Very Likely conservative leaders would back a Pro-Life candidate if Giuliani is nominated. Another 32% believe it is Somewhat Likely. Among all voters, 22% think a third party approach is Very Likely and another 33% say its Somewhat Likely.
Most Republican voters consider themselves Pro-Life on the issue of Abortion. Most Democrats and Unaffiliated Voters are Pro-Choice.
The bigger question for Giuliani might be how this possible challenge from the right might affect perceptions of his electability. Currently, Giuliani is seen as the most electable Republican candidate which helps overcome concerns that some have about his ideology. A survey conducted earlier this month found that 72% of Republicans think Giuliani is at least Somewhat Likely to win the White House if nominated. However, the current survey finds that number falling to 58% if Christian conservatives back a third-party option.
With a third-party option on the table, only 18% of Republicans believe Giuliani would be Very Likely to win the election if nominated. Thats down from 31% in a two-way race.
Among all voters, 49% say Giuliani is at least Somewhat Likely to win a two-way match-up. That falls to 43% with a third party candidate in the mix.
Electability is a crucial issue for Giuliani because two-thirds of Republican voters seen him as politically moderate or liberal. That is a challenge unto itself in a political party where most primary voters consider themselves politically conservative. Fred Thompson is currently viewed as the most conservative candidate in the field.
Three of the last four Presidential elections have seen a candidate win with less than 50% of the total votes cast. If Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic Presidential nomination, there is a very reasonable possibility that neither major party candidate would top the 50% mark in Election 2008. With such a scenario, third party candidates on either side of the political spectrum could play a significant role by peeling away one or two percentage points of the vote.
Clinton is currently leading the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination, but her victory is not inevitable. Among Republicans, Thompson and Giuliani lead in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.
Crosstabs available for Premium Members only.
Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.
The Rasmussen Reports ElectionEdge Premium Service for Election 2008 offers the most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a Presidential election.
Rasmussen Reports Election 2006 coverage has been praised for its accuracy and reliability. Michael Barone, Senior Writer for U.S. News & World Report and co-author of The Almanac of American Politics, mentions, One clear lesson from the Republican victory of 2004 and the Democratic victory of 2006 is that the best place to look for polls that are spot on is RasmussenReports.com." And University of Virginia Professor Larry Sabato states, In election campaigns, Ive learned to look for the Rasmussen results. In my experience, they are right on the money. There is no question Rasmussen produces some of the most accurate and reliable polls in the country today.
Rasmussen Reports was also the nation's most accurate polling firm during the 2004 Presidential election and the only one to project both Bush and Kerry's vote total within half a percentage point of the actual outcome.
During both Election 2004 and Election 2006, RasmussenReports.com was the top-ranked public opinion research site on the web. We had twice as many visitors as our nearest competitor and nearly as many as all competitors combined.
Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade.
Sure, something like Ross Perot did. 8 years of Clinton.
Care to explain how that works because I certainly don't understand how voting pro-abortion whether R or D saves any babies?
Here’s the deal folks: nominate Giuliani and practically guarantee a win by the left.
I wish there were stats on the number of times the GOP has nominated a “moderate” or that a GOP candidate shifted to the left during the campaign with the result that the leftist won. As has been pointed out over and over again people will vote for the real thing rather than a watered-down version. And in those cases where the “moderate” won we have almost always been saddled with a RINO just as likely to back the left as his own party (Snowe, Collins, Chaffee, Arnold, Hagel, ad nauseum).
Conservatives tend to win when they run as conservatives. Rush has been pointing this out for years.
I don’t give two tinkles for the party designation. What does the candidate stand for? Does he have a philosophy that I can agree with for the most part? I used to vote Democrat but I started voting Republican because the GOP and its candidates held a philosophy that coincided with my own on far more points than the left. Republicans like Giuliani hold philosophies that I cannot support and that I cannot vote for.
If Giuliani is what the electorate wants in a president then the conservative movement has lost. That the move to the left is led by a Democrat or Republican is a trivial matter. It is the move itself that matters.
Well enough to put Hillary in office.
Idiotic or not, that is the lay of the land right now. If Rudy gets the nomination, there may not be a third party, but there will be a number of conservatives sitting out.
You are most likely correct that Pro-Lifers will not mount a third party..however, it is true that most (not all) pro-lifers will not vote for a pro-abortion canidate, nor will they vote for the democrat...however, the result is the same.
Care to place a wager on that if Rudy is the Republican nominee? Or, perhaps you mean the used-to-be Republicans before their party left them by nominating Giuliani won't form a new party, but vote for some existing 3rd party.
Don’t forget the Ron Paul cult.
If it’s Rudy911 vs. Hitlery, we’ve already lost. SoCons then have a choice: lose only the election (Hitlery wins), or lose the election and the GOP (Rudy911 wins).
I’ll minimize my losses and deal with Her Thighness, and start trying to rebuild the GOP and win in 2012.
There is no justification to vote for Rudy, none. Period, end of story. No matter how much you hate Clinton, it does not justify sacrificing everything at Rudy911’s altar. I will not be terrorized into voting for Rudy911.
Then how did George Bush win in 2000? I’ve read enumerable times on FR recently that Bush wasn’t considered conservative at the time(except as a “compassionate” conservative). He was clearly less conservative than John McCain in 2000, and could clearly be classified as a Republican moderate at the time.
That headline should read:
“14% Of Conservatives Favor Assisted Suicide”
>>Its proof that a Pro-Life third party would be idiotic, not proof that Rudy cant win.<<
It's one of the strongest weapons the Democrats have and they play it perfectly every election.
Say hello to President Clinton in 2009.
BTW, Is THIS political drek your FIRST CHOICE?
He is squirming constantly and misrepresenting his Hillary-like views on Guns, Abortion, Sanctuary, Federalizing Education, Feminizing the Military, Global UN Control, and oh, yeah, the NAU and NAFTA Superhighway...
I have already decided. I am not voting for him. Not I "don't think I'll vote for him."
No more "lesser of two evils."
That is just evil in and of itself. And those who wish to foist evil on us, as the 'lesser' are just accomplices to evil.
Don't be such an accomplice. Now is when and where you can make a difference. Support the bona fide conservatives.
HELP US. DON'T DESERT CONSERVATISM. STAND FOR SOMETHING!
Show some back-bone.
“Its proof that a Pro-Life third party would be idiotic, not proof that Rudy cant win.”
Can you say hello President Clinton. thanks to the 27% of Christians who would rather have a communist dictator, than Rudy.
Here’s the deal that will be cut: Rudy will get the Christian right once he agrees to give them veto power over the selection of the next Sup Ct justice.
Just as I tell people I am a Christian, not a Baptist, I am a conservative, not a Republican. If the Republicans leave the conservatives, they can go back to obscurity where they were for 60 years. I won't kill children, give up my gun rights, or bless homosexual marriage, just to get a tax cut.( And I don't think Rooty is all that good on taxes).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.